Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This Just In: Everything Came From Nothing and if You Donít Agree You Know Nothing
Darwin's God ^ | 01/10/2012 | Cornelius Hunter

Posted on 01/11/2012 8:47:11 PM PST by SeekAndFind

Evolution professor Lawrence Krauss is now saying that the universe, and everything in it, came from nothing. Not only that, but there are probably billions and billions of universes that have spontaneously arisen. Occasionally a universe happens to have all the right properties for life to arise spontaneously within it, and that would be us.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO



Krauss, a theoretical physicist and head of The Origins Project at Arizona State University, is not the first evolutionist to defy the age-old wisdom that something does not come from nothing. World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking popularized the idea in a recent book he co-authored entitled The Grand Design.

Krauss and Hawking use gravitational theory and quantum mechanics to argue that, in fact, such spontaneous creation is all but inevitable. Their narratives appeal to graduate-level physics which most people do not understand, but the basic idea of a strictly naturalistic creation story goes back centuries.

The intellectual necessity of naturalism

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with the rise of modern science and the Enlightenment, the urge for strict naturalism was promoted by various Christian traditions. Both in England and on the continent, Christians were refining a range of theological views that required science to describe the world’s origins strictly in terms of natural law. The dozen or so views that emerged fell into two broad categories. One category dealt with the divine attributes while the other dealt with epistemology and man’s knowledge. For short, we may refer to them as the “greater god mandate” and the “intellectual necessity” for naturalism.

In each category a foundational theological view supported various specific arguments for naturalism. One argument from the intellectual necessity view, which became more clear in the eighteenth century, was that special divine action (or primary causation) interfered with scientific progress, or even made science impossible.

As Baden Powell had insisted, all of science depends on the principles of uniformitarianism. Darwin’s confidant J. D. Hooker was more direct. Though he found special creation and evolution at an empirical standoff, neither theory with a clear advantage, he opted for the latter for its “great organizing potential.” It was not that evolutionary theories were “the truest,” he wrote to William H. Harvey in 1859, “but because they do give you room to reason and reflect at present, and hopes for the future, whereas the old stick-in-the-mud doctrines … are all used up. They are so many stops to further inquiry; if they are admitted as truths, why there is an end of the whole matter, and it is no use hoping ever to get any rational explanation of origin or dispersion of species—so I hate them.”

A law-like origins of the world, on the other hand, supported the accrual of knowledge. Darwin enunciated this view when he explained that acceptance of his theory of evolution was less important than the rejection of special divine action:

Whether the naturalist believes in the views given by Lamarck, by Geoffroy St. Hilaire, by the author of the ‘Vestiges,’ by Mr. Wallace or by myself, signifies extremely little in comparison with the admission that species have descended from other species, and have not been created immutable: for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide field open to him for further inquiry.

The rejection of special divine action was equated with scientific progress. Here Darwin extrapolated his metaphysical argument to arrive at the ultimate proof against creation. His main point, that no creator ever would have intended for this world, was now protected against counter arguments because such counter arguments would be unscientific.

Darwin repeatedly used metaphysical arguments against creation to prop up evolution, but now he declared that counter arguments would be out-of-bounds since they were unscientific. Darwin correctly observed that creation and its supporting arguments hinge on one’s concept of God, but he conveniently forgot that arguments against creation equally hinge on one’s concept of God. For Darwin, it was fair game to argue against creation but not for it. Thus, evolution was the correct scientific conclusion. In fact, what good science required was a naturalistic explanation, regardless of what particular explanation was used.

Since Darwin this theological argument has gained strength. For Niles Eldredge, the key responsibility of science—to predict—becomes impossible when a capricious Creator is entertained:

But the Creator obviously could have fashioned each species in any way imaginable. There is no basis for us to make predictions about what we should find when we study animals and plants if we accept the basic creationist position. … the creator could have fashioned each organ system or physiological process (such as digestion) in whatever fashion the Creator pleased.

In his text Paul Moody explains that without strict naturalism one does not have an explanation at all:

it amounts to saying, ‘Things are this way because they are this way.’ Furthermore, it removes the subject from scientific inquiry. One can do no more than speculate as to why the Creator chose to follow one pattern in creating diverse animals rather than to use differing patterns.

Likewise Tim Berra warns that we must not be led astray by the apparent design in biological systems, for it “is not the sudden brainstorm of a creator, but an expression of the operation of impersonal natural laws, of water seeking its level. An appeal to a supernatural explanation is unscientific and unnecessary—and certain to stifle intellectual curiosity and leave important questions unasked and unanswered. ” In fact, “Creationism has no explanatory powers, no application for future investigation, no way to advance knowledge, no way to lead to new discoveries. As far as science is concerned, creationism is a sterile concept.”

Lawrence Krauss and the intellectual necessity

And so it is not surprising to hear Lawrence Krauss, at the 3:14 mark in the above lecture, rehearse the same, centuries-old, intellectual necessity theology in support of his conviction that something, in fact the entire universe, just happened to spontaneously arise from nothing:

I am going to a talk about our modern picture of cosmology and how it has changed our view of the universe—the past and the future, and in some sense how that picture is clearly remarkable. And far more remarkable than the fairly tales that are made up in most religious situations.

But the key point is mystery. That is one of the things that makes science so special I think. It is that scientists love mysteries. They love not knowing. That’s a key part of science. The excitement of learning about the universe. And that again is so different than the sterile aspect of religion where the excitement is apparently knowing everything, although clearly knowing nothing.

There you have it. Without naturalism there is not only no excitement, there is no knowledge. We are left “apparently knowing everything” but “clearly knowing nothing.” Given this truth, then of course, we must have evolution.

Everything came from nothing and if you don’t agree, then you know nothing. Religion drives science, and it matters.


TOPICS: Astronomy; History; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; nothing; origins

1 posted on 01/11/2012 8:47:16 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Just words.....


2 posted on 01/11/2012 8:51:20 PM PST by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’m not sure I follow the logic of Lawrence Krauss...

If something came from nothing, nothing is not nothing, it is something. By attributing creative powers to nothing, one has made something out of nothing.

He seems to be attributing creative powers to emergence, without any evidence nor cause-and-effect relationship.


3 posted on 01/11/2012 8:52:58 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

One thing is for sure. Nothing is for sure....


4 posted on 01/11/2012 8:53:20 PM PST by isthisnickcool (Sharia? No thanks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Intolerant in NJ

I’m not sure I follow the logic of Lawrence Krauss...

If something came from nothing, nothing is not nothing, it is something. By attributing creative powers to nothing, one has made something out of nothing.

He seems to be attributing creative powers to emergence, without any evidence nor cause-and-effect relationship.


5 posted on 01/11/2012 8:53:28 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Nothing from nothing leaves nothing/gotta have somethin’/if you wanna be with me...’’.


6 posted on 01/11/2012 8:57:32 PM PST by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Every Sunday we Orthodox pray in Divine Liturgy about—and to—God who “brought us from non-existence into being”.


7 posted on 01/11/2012 8:59:13 PM PST by Honorary Serb (Kosovo is Serbia! Free Srpska! Abolish ICTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t agree.

And so according to this clown, I know nothing. But nothing turns into everything so I must know everything - or at least I will know everything as soon as everything comes from the nothing I know. Or something like that.

(Oh man, my brain hurts.)


8 posted on 01/11/2012 9:02:39 PM PST by Nik Naym (It's not my fault... I have compulsive smartass disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

But something had to be here before nothing was here otherwise there would be no place for nothing to come to.


9 posted on 01/11/2012 9:03:19 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer ("Climate Change" my a.... All weather is local.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This Just In: Everything Came From Nothing and if You Don’t Agree You Know Nothing

I prefer the version that has been around for years; decades?

"At first there was nothing.
Then it exploded,"

10 posted on 01/11/2012 9:03:32 PM PST by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The only commonality amongst men is not knowing the answer to the big question. Faith is good but it's called 'faith' for a reason. It's ironic that so very many millions have killed and have died upon the insistence that they know.

11 posted on 01/11/2012 9:04:57 PM PST by I see my hands (The old sod ne'er shall be forgot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

That the universe arose from nothing is pretty consistent with Christian teaching which is that God created everything ex nihilo, (out of nothing). His problem is that he cuts the creator out of the equation and supposes that somehow matter can act, (self create), and do so before it exists, which is astonishingly silly.


12 posted on 01/11/2012 9:05:53 PM PST by Busywhiskers ("Once you have wrestled, everything else in life is easy" -Dan Gable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Aristotle is throwing up the bullshit flag


13 posted on 01/11/2012 9:06:15 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Rene Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.” I say, “I think I think, therefore I think I am.”


14 posted on 01/11/2012 9:07:45 PM PST by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Best anti-Darwin arguement presented is in “Godless” Ann Coulter


15 posted on 01/11/2012 9:08:53 PM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExtremeUnction

Clarification... “I think, therefore I am” Rene Descarte


16 posted on 01/11/2012 9:12:07 PM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I was in the era of endoctrinization that included Locke, Berkley, and Hume, the empiricists, if you can believe that.


17 posted on 01/11/2012 9:14:06 PM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“Evolution professor Lawrence Krauss is now saying that the universe, and everything in it, came from nothing.”

So? I believe the universe came from nothing, but I'm a creationist. The universe sprang into existence when God willed it. Isn't that pretty much what the Bible says?

At some point, evolution or creation both come down to faith. This universe is all chance, or it was created. If it was created, and I believe it was, then trying to define or fully understand the Creator is a fool's errand. Why? Because our measuring tools are based entirely on this universe. A universe Creator would be beyond time, length, height, width, mass, etc. The existence or lack of a creator cannot be proved using earthly measures. At some point, it comes down to faith.

For me, the Bible offers a compelling, plausible explanation for why we're here. I believe Christ was telling the truth. Therefore, I believe.

18 posted on 01/11/2012 9:14:26 PM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do it. Try good instead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If something came from nothing, nothing is not nothing, it is something...or, something coming from nothing is outside man's experience and understanding - hence, there is something beyond the nothingness from which something came, maybe we might call it God......
19 posted on 01/11/2012 9:22:48 PM PST by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"If something came from nothing, nothing is not nothing, it is something. By attributing creative powers to nothing, one has made something out of nothing.

What is this? An Abbott & Costello schtick?

( ^8}

20 posted on 01/11/2012 9:23:09 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
They believe that order comes out of chaos too.
21 posted on 01/11/2012 9:29:09 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Grammar & spelling maybe wrong, get over it, the world will not come to an end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This guy is getting paid to preach his faith, not teach science.


22 posted on 01/11/2012 9:30:30 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

SeekAndFind: “He seems to be attributing creative powers to emergence, without any evidence nor cause-and-effect relationship.”

If anything, the cause-and-effect relationships between everything that exists seems to lend strength to the notion that the universe itself had a cause, doesn’t it? It still comes down to faith, but which is easier to believe?


23 posted on 01/11/2012 9:44:56 PM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do it. Try good instead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Busywhiskers
Busywhiskers: “His problem is that he cuts the creator out of the equation and supposes that somehow matter can act, (self create), and do so before it exists, which is astonishingly silly.”

Well, it certainly defies the cause-and-effect relationships that govern everything we know in this universe. Look around. Everything has a cause. Yet, this guy thinks the universe itself had no cause? We can't prove either way, but creationism seems more plausible than what this guy is postulating.

24 posted on 01/11/2012 9:50:32 PM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do it. Try good instead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953
guitarplayer1953: “They believe that order comes out of chaos too.”

That is at least plausible. Look at a chaotic explosion and you'll find at least some orderly patterns within it. It's the argument that if you put a near infinite number of chimps on typewriters or put one chimp on a typewriter for a near infinite period of time, sooner or later one of Shakespeare's plays would be typed. If you had that play in your hands, you might very well think it was typed intentionally, but it was entirely random. You couldn't even prove randomness or intention with statistical analysis, because that play could have been the first thing typed (highly improbable but not impossible) or produced after billions upon billions of years of typing.

25 posted on 01/11/2012 10:01:11 PM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do it. Try good instead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What drivel. Something from nothing? No excitement in wondering how God created it all? Nothing is worth exploring nor left to discover if there is a Creator? He makes no sense.


26 posted on 01/11/2012 10:13:24 PM PST by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

A guy walks into the Dalai Lama’s pizza shop and asks, “Can you make me one with everything?”


27 posted on 01/11/2012 10:18:44 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it make a noise?
If there is no life, is there time?


28 posted on 01/11/2012 10:20:59 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it make a noise?
If there is no life, is there time?


29 posted on 01/11/2012 10:21:14 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What is the thing called that contains all the universes?


30 posted on 01/11/2012 10:22:05 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I actually find it amusing that "big bang" cosmology which, especially in Hawking's null-initial-condition version, looks like a mathematical model of what a universe created ex nihilo should look like from within, has obliged atheists to propose a "multiverse" as an alternative to God, thereby abandoning their stance that Occam's razor favors atheism over theism by positing lots and lots of entities as an alternative to One.
31 posted on 01/11/2012 10:39:27 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This Just In: Everything Came From Nothing God, and if You Don’t Agree, You Know Nothing Don't Know God.
32 posted on 01/11/2012 10:41:15 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
...creationism is a sterile concept

Really? This is has to be most ignorant, unscientific comment I've heard of late - a straw man.

What inquisitive mind hasn't taken apart a bike, a radio, a car engine, a hard-drive, or studied the heart, brain or rock strata - just to see how it was made? Are only evos curious?

Anyone - please name one serious Creationist that has stated that studying nature is a waste of time "since we already know how it got here"...

33 posted on 01/11/2012 10:48:08 PM PST by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

Agreed.

I often wonder what the next few seconds must have looked like after “Let there be light!”.

Something akin to a “big bang” - followed by a light show perhaps?


34 posted on 01/11/2012 10:54:04 PM PST by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

The problem is that such arguments rely on actual infinity and properties of the random distribution which may or may not hold.

The universe, while large, is finite, and of finite age. Arguments that ordered arrangements must arise in random (or arbitrary) structures of sufficient size are the domain of a part of mathematics called Ramsey theory. It turns out that the sizes of structures needed to guarantee ordered arrangements of even simple sorts can be staggeringly large (look up “Graham’s problem” and “Graham’s number” for an example). It is not at all clear that the old “the universe is so old and so big that life would have to arise just by chance” argument is actually valid.


35 posted on 01/11/2012 10:55:00 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Yea and I can throw a cup of ink into the air and when it lands on a canvas prestochangeo it looks like the Mona Lisa.

"billions upon billions of years of typing." there has not been enough time for all the chips to fall into place to have the diversity of animal, flora, and insects that this world holds.

I heard a theory that possible microbial life came here from a comet or asteroid. Well if that was true then the moon should have more life than any place since it has so many pock marks from asteroids hitting.

36 posted on 01/12/2012 12:40:57 AM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Grammar & spelling maybe wrong, get over it, the world will not come to an end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I promised myself I’d avoid “Evo v. Crevo” threads, but perhaps it might be helpful to note that just because we live on a planet where there are seasons, where life is created in surplus and is weeded by competition for survival - that is no absolute proof that the rest of the universe is the same.


37 posted on 01/12/2012 1:47:23 AM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

I agree with you, but the problem is it cannot be proved conclusively. While throwing ink in the air to produce a perfect copy of the Mona Lisa is very, very improbable, it’s not impossible. It could also happen on the first try. If we’re talking about our own creation rather than ink and the Mona Lisa, the perfect circumstances would have to exist, or we wouldn’t exist. That’s why we’d be located the proper distance from the sun on a planet with the right amount of water, etc.

Of course, I’m a creationist. Not knowing the math myself, I think the probability of us occuring is very, very low—far, far lower than your Mona Lisa example. I find it much easier to believe in a Creator—a cause for our effect. I also find Christ’s teachings to be the best explanation for what I see around me. Therefore, I’m a Christian. I can’t prove Christ was right. That’s where the faith comes in.


38 posted on 01/12/2012 2:38:14 AM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do it. Try good instead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
It could also happen on the first try.

No it couldnt. The complexity of the image precludes this. This is why ‘infinity’ is cited in such arguments; something incalculably large is needed to lend plausibility to an argument that damn well needs the crutch. Calculating back from infinity is as ridiculous as calculating infinity.

39 posted on 01/12/2012 5:22:16 AM PST by TalBlack ( Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]




Click the Pic

Don't Let the FReepathon DragOn!

Donate Monthly
Sponsors will fire up $10 for each New Monthly Donor

Many thanks to JoeProBono for the Cyclops dragon graphic

40 posted on 01/12/2012 7:07:41 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

I agree it’s far fetched to believe all this order was created out of pure chaos over a near infinity of time. However, that isn’t the same thing as saying it’s impossible. If something is possible, no matter how improbable, it could happen on the first try. Let’s say you want to roll ten dice at a time and get nothing but sixes one million times in a row. That’s highly improbable but not impossible. That sequence could happen the first time you start rolling or much, much later, but it would eventually occur given enough time.

I think your point is the probability of the universe springing into existence out of chaos is essentially impossible, because there simply isn’t enough time for it to occur. I agree. I believe it’s impossible. I’m a creationist. Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s possible to prove it’s impossible. I doubt anyone could create the math necessary to prove either way, because we are dealing with too many unknowns. It’s not like my dice problem where I set all the parameters.


41 posted on 01/12/2012 4:43:15 PM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do it. Try good instead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

BTW, I’m only making the point that it’s impossible to prove one way or the other. That’s not a problem for me, because I think it’s far more easy to believe in the Creator than to think all this sprang out of nothing. A Creator not only fits all the other cause and effect observed in the universe, it also seems more probable than this all being created by chance. Either way, you and I cannot prove it.


42 posted on 01/12/2012 5:15:38 PM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do it. Try good instead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Even moreso is considering organic chemistry. Yes, it’s incredibly improbable that you can form DNA from what? Again, this isn’t to say that we can’t synthesize incredible chemical compounds from base materials such as sugars or petroleum, but all chemical syntheses require incredibly strict, step by step control of the chemical reaction to work. Even then, you have to sort out what is the genuine product, and what are the isomers. All I am saying is that yes, some things are just rediculous to try and leave it up to saying a random origin produced it, organic chemistry is only part of it, too.


43 posted on 01/12/2012 5:50:35 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

Morpheus2009: “Yes, it’s incredibly improbable that you can form DNA from what?”

Just look at the wonderful complexity around us. I don’t know how one would even begin to make the necessary calculations to determine the probability of DNA, much less an entire universe. It would take an amazing amount of faith to believe all of this was created at random. It’s far easier for me to believe a creator made it. This creator, being outside of the universe, could not be adequately described (measured) using universe-based tools.


44 posted on 01/12/2012 6:41:39 PM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do it. Try good instead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Let me put it this way, the complexity of chemistry, gives me great appreciation to the Biblical poetic passage that God created man from the dust. Even today, the creation story goes beyond what one would consider practical from an extremely primitive, and inanimate substance to living matter. It’s an amazing jump in complexity that is perplexing and incredible to look at. If there is ever a science that gives a glimpse at the existence of some greater order and intelligence, chemistry, especially organic, illustrates this fairly well, from my experience.


45 posted on 01/13/2012 9:53:51 AM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

“I think your point is the probability of the universe springing into existence out of chaos is essentially impossible, because there simply isn’t enough time for it to occur.”

More the compelexity of complex systems within a larger system. The Mona Lisa was a good example. The depth of the painting is beyond chance since chance “resets” at every failure.


46 posted on 01/13/2012 3:51:08 PM PST by TalBlack ( Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I only have one question, why is it that only UNIVERSES can pop into existence from nothing? Why not a horse, dog, my next house?

What ‘rules’ govern NOTHING?

Ok, that was two questions...


47 posted on 01/15/2012 11:22:54 AM PST by thatjoeguy (MAYDAY! MAYDAY! We are so going in ! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson